Editor - If I proposed a constitutional amendment prohibiting Catholics from marrying in California, wouldn't it be appropriate to label me a bigot?

If I helped form a coalition to promote that goal and used my power to urged those who trusted me to vote against Catholic civil marriage, shouldn't I expect that Catholics would express anger? Would it matter to Catholics that many might call me "a loving person" or that I mouthed the values of "tolerance, respect and trust" while denying others equality under the law? If my efforts were successful, could I reasonably expect Catholics whose rights were abolished by my actions to "move on"?

San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer is a member of a minority religion which has historically been discriminated against in America. Now he has used his power and influence to take a basic civil right away from another minority. He should not be surprised to be labeled a bigot.

We're to blame

Editor - Voters rightfully lack confidence that the governor and legislators cannot fix California's growing budget catastrophe, but they unwittingly share much of the blame.

As long as they believe that they need not pay the taxes necessary to support such vital functions as public education, health, safety and transportation, the structural deficit begun by their passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 will only continue to compound.

Pay with pride

Editor - To the Republican legislators who are adamantly opposed to taxes: California, like all states, municipalities, businesses and families, does not run on air.

Also, it's patriotic to support your state. Many of those who think of taxes as a burden, also encourage young people to sacrifice time and comfort, risking life and health, for their country. Surely, they can encourage the people who have benefited from this great state to enthusiastically support it, especially if they have prospered enough to buy expensive cars and yachts. They should be proud to be able to do their share.

As for helping the poor, the Bible and all religions and systems of ethics repeat that it is a great virtue to help the less fortunate. We all know it's moral and decent. It is better to give than to receive, and it feels wonderful.

RUTH BIRD

Berkeley

Baby steps

Editor - Now that the Big Three have driven their own cars to Washington, maybe next they could learn to carpool.

Now that they ask concessions from labor, shouldn't they match that with concessions on their income as well?

NANCY ROCA

Little River (Mendocino County)

Skip UC, kids

Editor - It is becoming increasingly apparent that the main function of the University of California system is not top quality and affordable education, but enrichment of its highest management.

The system's practices, including double-dipping and hiring without open advertising or a job search, make it not unlike some major corporations with obscene top-level salaries. The students are forced to pay ever-increasing tuition costs to fund these practices and salaries.

My son once proudly attended the University of California. Today, I would strongly urge him to look elsewhere.

RICK CHAFIAN

San Francisco

UC dare

Editor - After reading the recent articles regarding the ludicrous and elitist buyouts that the UC Grand Poobahs have given their amigos and amigas, I hereby challenge each and every recipient, starting with Linda Morris Williams, to donate all the those golden parachutes back to the UC system in the form of scholarships for needy students.

I dare you. Show your charity after this obviously broken system gifted you.

Let in the light

Editor - The Legislative Counsel of California collects important data about bills introduced in California and how our legislators vote, but the public is not allowed access to this data in a database format, which would allow for searching, analysis and more transparency.

This makes no sense. We, the public, paid to assemble this information, and the California government should make this database public.

MAPLight.org and the California First Amendment Coalition are suing the Legislative Counsel to give the public access to this data in electronic database format. I hope that the state wakes up to its public responsibility for public access.

Lonely Billy

Editor - The photo of Billy the Asian elephant alone in his miserable enclosure at the Los Angeles Zoo is an absolute tragedy ("Fight over habitat for elephants heats up," Dec. 3). Lonely, aimless, solely there to make money for his owners and to provide entertainment for people.

This situation is cruel in the extreme. Elephants are group animals, and I'll wager the ones that have died at early ages at Los Angeles Zoo have done so because they had nothing to live for. Of course, he should go to a sanctuary - and very soon.

There are many things for people to do in the way of being entertained, other than watching a magnificent creature in a totally unnatural environment dying from depression.

Support for Israel

Editor - Khaled Galal (Letters, Dec. 4) is critical of President-elect Barack Obama's appointment of Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state because during her presidential campaign, Clinton gave her unwavering support to Israel. Galal notes that Clinton said, the United States "will never pressure Israel to make unilateral concessions."

Well, what's wrong with that? Why should Israel compromise its well-being to a democratically elected Hamas government that has pledged to obliterate it? Can you imagine America or European nations making unilateral concessions to a government which has vowed to destroy it?

Galal is also implicitly critical of Clinton's statement that the United States "stands with Israel now and forever." Doesn't that make sense? Israel has proven to be the sole consistent friend of our country in the Middle East.

DAN SPITZER

Berkeley

Nothing but a tax

Editor - The city that knows how would make a grave mistake considering congestion pricing for San Francisco. For starters, we do not have the congestion dynamics of London or Singapore, with millions of commuters descending on our fair city each day.

In its simplest terms, congestion pricing is a regressive tax that penalizes middle- and lower-income visitors who need to enter the central business district. The $6 fee is punitive and will cause drivers to steer clear of coming to the central business district, adversely impacting merchants, restaurants and other commercial establishments.

With the country in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, now is not the time to consider yet another fee (tax) that will dissuade people from coming to downtown San Francisco.

And, by the way, who determined there is a congestion problem? On almost any given day, a driver can go from 5th and Folsom streets to Fisherman's Wharf in less than 10 minutes.

Instead of implementing the failed London model, which has not delivered the new transit resources it promised, let's focus on the SFPark program that will be rolled out shortly by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. The SFPark plan is a well thought out congestion pricing alternative to the controversial London model. SFPark is based on implementing a new street meter program that will allow the city to raise and lower street parking cost based on the demand in the area. By raising and lowering meter rates, it will keep cars from circling and circling busy streets and free up the roads for Muni to flow through.

In the meantime, the most effective way to address any vehicle congestion in downtown is through the strict enforcement of trucks and cars double-parking, red zones, yellow zones and bus zones. Take the increased fines from this enforcement, add it to the new revenues from SFPark and go buy more buses.